An understatement
Awwww....it didnt work....hold on
Freakin west coast cops...
You phail at posting.
here
There! I expect formal apologies from all of you.
Quote from: Flying Pig on September 18, 2007, 03:27:21 AM
There! I expect formal apologies from all of you.
I'm Airborne..... NO!
Well I don't know about being better, but you certainly have a much more interesting commute. Cool picture though.
Live action: http://myspacetv.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=687702
www.metacafe.com/watch/250222/jump_masters_dance/
Remember that Airborne means jump qualified (5 jumps) but a Paratrooper is a whole other thing......
All the way!
Quote from: Flying Pig on September 18, 2007, 03:27:21 AM
There! I expect formal apologies from all of you.
I'm sorry that you're a leg.
;D
Bravo Co. 1/505th PIR, 3rd Bgd
1989-1992
That's been hanging on my wall for a week! ;D
B/3/12 SFG(A) 93-94
C/3/12 SFG(A) & D(P)/5/19 SFG(A) 94-96
3/325 AIR, 82D ABN 96-99
Quote from: brasda91 on September 18, 2007, 01:10:22 PM
;D
Bravo Co. 1/505th PIR, 3rd Bgd
1989-1992
H-Minus Bro.
AATW
1/325 AIR
Lets Go!
Reminds me a little of disc 2 of BAND OF BROTHERS. Pretty Good!
Cat People paratroopers. Oh yeah.
OK Nate...
As anyone who has been to Staff College knows, they'll almost certainly never be another combat jump. Paratrooper training is a huge waste of money and resources.
I think the last combat drop (excluding commando operations and what were basically public relations events in Granada and Panama) was the Suez crisis in 1957.
Simply, the helicopter-borne troops can do everything paratroopers can do and better.
Quote from: dogboy on September 26, 2007, 04:40:22 PM
As anyone who has been to Staff College knows, they'll almost certainly never be another combat jump. Paratrooper training is a huge waste of money and resources.
I think the last combat drop (excluding commando operations and what were basically public relations events in Granada and Panama) was the Suez crisis in 1957.
Simply, the helicopter-borne troops can do everything paratroopers can do and better.
You seem to not be current in your history.
There have been combat jumps in A-Stan and Iraq. I am good friends with one of the Rangers who jumped in BOTH Grenada and Panama and their parachute entry was a deciding factor in the quick resolution of those conflicts.
You obviously have never been to jump school and served on jump status.
I wonder how many helicopters it would take to transport an entire brigade of soldiers into a hostile DZ? How many would be shot down? Compared to C141's full of Paratroopers at a much safer altitude in the dark of night.
And what does CAP Staff College have to do with the knowledge of combat jumps anyway?
Legs....
Those same academics told us that the Phoenix, the Sparrow, and the Sidewinder had made guns on airplanes obsolete. Then along came the unpleasantness in beautiful French Indo-China and all three services were scrambling to put the guns back on the airplanes. Air Cavalry has its uses, but give me Airborne any day.
Yeah, Staff College taught me to use resources and not to be dogmatic.
Some strategic and tactical military terms I have learned over the years, and not just from staff college:
Power Projection
Vertical envelopment
Airhead
Global reach (not to be confused with "Global Reach")
Denied entry
Air/Land Battle
The deployment of troops via parachute is just one tool in your toolbox.
Rangers? Jump into airfields and secure an airhead for the follow-on of more forces. Nobody suggests that gigantic mass-tactical airborne operations, similar to Overlord or Market Garden, will be the way into the future. Far from it.
Gonna project a flight of 10 MH-47Gs from Fort Campbell to transport 100 SO troops into some god-forsaken airfield in Afghanistan to seize it for some C-17s to bring a division in?
No, but if you need to force your way into a land-locked place like Afghanistan without the ability to pre-deploy aviation assets nearby (K2, etc), then you've got to do stuff like fly in paratroops from fairly far away to secure an airfield to then bring in the heavy stuff.
Traditional heliborne air assault has a limit on the battlespace due to the inherent abilities for rotary wing assets to project power. Want to deploy a helo 500 miles with 24 infantrymen? You will need 2 refuel stops enroute. Oh, and by the way, thats a 5hr drive. Minimum. So to put a company of infantry in, you're looking at 7-8 Chinook-class aircraft, crossloaded. OK, there's 125-150 guys.
How about we take 2 C-130s for about 2hrs, no gas stops enroute, and drop the whole unit in.
Or 7-8 Herks and drop in 2-4 companies.
And do it from MUCH further away.
Helicopters do no represent the entire equation. And I say this as a gigantic proponent of Army Aviation.
Quote from: DHollywood on September 26, 2007, 05:58:29 PM
Quote from: dogboy on September 26, 2007, 04:40:22 PM
As anyone who has been to Staff College knows, they'll almost certainly never be another combat jump. Paratrooper training is a huge waste of money and resources.
I think the last combat drop (excluding commando operations and what were basically public relations events in Granada and Panama) was the Suez crisis in 1957.
Simply, the helicopter-borne troops can do everything paratroopers can do and better.
You seem to not be current in your history.
There have been combat jumps in A-Stan and Iraq. I am good friends with one of the Rangers who jumped in BOTH Grenada and Panama and their parachute entry was a deciding factor in the quick resolution of those conflicts.
You are mistaken. Grenada and Panama were both publicity stunts without much military value. In both cases, they were without any real opposition or their would have been a paratrooper slaughter.
There have been useful jumps in Afghanistan and Iraq. Small commando type jumps as I stated.
The only large (about a battalion) recent airborne operation I am aware of was Bashar Airport in 2003 which was controlled by Kurdish forces and US Special Forces. There was no opposition, so I didn't include it as a "combat drop".
There are two fundamental problem with paratroopers. One, they are extremely vulnerable in descent and immediately on reaching the ground. Second, they almost completely defenseless against determined counter-attack because they lack armor, AA, and artillery.
QuoteYou obviously have never been to jump school and served on jump status.
No, but I did 22 insertions under fire in Vietnam. How many combat jumps did you say you've made?
QuoteI wonder how many helicopters it would take to transport an entire brigade of soldiers into a hostile DZ? How many would be shot down? Compared to C141's full of Paratroopers at a much safer altitude in the dark of night.
I don't think there will be any more jumps from the C-141. All C-141's have been retired.
Its replacement, the C-17 carries only about a hundred paratroopers, about 20 more troops than a utility helicopter.
A 2000 man brigade would require about 75 helicopters, more if heavy equipment is required.The US Army
alone has over seven
thousand helicopters.
QuoteAnd what does CAP Staff College have to do with the knowledge of combat jumps anyway?
It was Air University's Air Command and Staff College that I studied airborne operations in. Seriously, no one with
half a brain in the military believes that even battalion-level paratrooper operations against opposition are feasible in modern warfare. They were barely feasible in WWII.
Think about it this way. The US Marine Corps is the premier US expeditionary force. They even have their own air division. How many paratroopers do they bother to have?
Airborne is important to the Army because it is an elite. Special selection and hard training make them excellent soldiers, among the best in the world. It's the jump training that is an anachronism, a waste of money and resources.
QuoteNo, but if you need to force your way into a land-locked place like Afghanistan without the ability to pre-deploy aviation assets nearby (K2, etc), then you've got to do stuff like fly in paratroops from fairly far away to secure an airfield to then bring in the heavy stuff.
<snip>
How about we take 2 C-130s for about 2hrs, no gas stops enroute, and drop the whole unit in.
Or 7-8 Herks and drop in 2-4 companies.
And do it from MUCH further away.
Helicopters do no represent the entire equation. And I say this as a gigantic proponent of Army Aviation.
I agree, that under the very unusual circumstances of very light opposition, an existing airfield that can be captured intact so that fixed wing aircraft can be landed immediately after it is secured, and all friendly bases are far away, paratroops would be the best device to deploy.
How many paratroops does that justify having? Maybe one battalion (about a thousand troops)? Maybe two or three? The Army Rangers already have
three battalions why does the Army need two whole more divisions of the jump qualified?
Quote from: dogboy on September 26, 2007, 07:48:57 PM
You are mistaken. Grenada and Panama were both publicity stunts without much military value. In both cases, they were without any real opposition or their would have been a paratrooper slaughter.
There have been useful jumps in Afghanistan and Iraq. Small commando type jumps as I stated.
The only large (about a battalion) recent airborne operation I am aware of was Bashar Airport in 2003 which was controlled by Kurdish forces and US Special Forces. There was no opposition, so I didn't include it as a "combat drop".
Since you were not there you will understand if I take the word of those who were there over yours. I'm confident that certain of the rescued students in Grenada feel there was much military value to our operations there. I'm sure the families of the soldiers who gave their lives during these operations would disagree with you that there was no opposition.
But I'm sure it does not compare to Vietnam where you were.
I dont claim any combat jumps. I would however suit up and jump into a hot LZ anytime and anywhere I was ordered to do so. I would do so because I am a Paratrooper. I don't expect anyone would understand that who isn't a Paratrooper.
While I can fathom your academic premise that jump school and airborne troops are a waste of time/money, et. al., it seems better people than you and I are in charge of that particular military asset. Seems there are no indications that jump school is going away anytime soon.
In any event, I find your syllogism less than compelling and we will simply disagree on this issue.
Quote from: dogboy on September 26, 2007, 08:05:35 PM
How many paratroops does that justify having? Maybe one battalion (about a thousand troops)? Maybe two or three? The Army Rangers already have three battalions why does the Army need two whole more divisions of the jump qualified?
I'll agree with you that folks
not going to jump units, i.e. on jump status, do not need to go to airborne school. It's a waste of money and resources.
Are there two airborne divisions? I thought there was just one, 82nd. 101st stopped being "airborne" years ago.
Why do there need to be 3 Ranger BNs and an Airborne division? I'd say so they can share the work load, the "ready" status, regionally specific response AOs, and multiple insertions at the same time, against different opposition. That's my uneducated reasoning. But I've never been to Staff College.
The 3 Ranger BNs rotate the responsibility of being on RRF1. This allows each battalion adequate time for deployments in between training, down time, refit, and so on. With the 82nd, I would assume the same thing, each brigade holds a different status. Some deployed, some returning from deployment, some training, some preparing for deployment....
Again, one brigade of paratroopers would be burned out from constant readiness, deployment/missions, training, and preparing for deployment. Airborne insertions are simply a means to arrive at the edge of battle. Parachute jumping, in and of itself, is not a weapon, but a means to place fighting men in strategic locations to bring the fight to the enemy.
In summary, I agree airborne school for clerks, cooks, ROTC, West Pointers is nothing but a morale and confidence boost. Not worth the money and resources. However, I do believe having Ranger Regiment along with at least a full airborne division is worthy of existence, support, and quite possibly, expansion to include a second division. YMMV and I can respect that.
Hoooaaaa Paratroopers!
307th Eng Bn, 82nd Abn!
BTW...I do know this, Saddam was deathly afraid of the 82nd when we went in the first time, deathly afraid.
Trust me, use them for what they are trained for and they are almost unstoppable.
Quote from: dogboy on September 26, 2007, 07:48:57 PM
Its replacement, the C-17 carries only about a hundred paratroopers, about 20 more troops than a utility helicopter.
Uh, what kind of helicopter are you talking about? A Chinook won't carry that many. It will only seat 34 pax, basically a platoon size element. Doubling that would be unsafe at best, but more like suicidal.
Blackhawks only carry eleven. There aren't any Hueys around, but I'm fairly certain they don't carry more than a 'Hawk. Kiowa's aren't even worth mention when it comes to pax.
Even later Chinooks might have more weight capacity, but you're still limited to
space. I don't think they're much bigger, if larger at all.
Quote from: Hawk200 on September 27, 2007, 03:50:54 AM
Quote from: dogboy on September 26, 2007, 07:48:57 PM
Its replacement, the C-17 carries only about a hundred paratroopers, about 20 more troops than a utility helicopter.
Uh, what kind of helicopter are you talking about? A Chinook won't carry that many. It will only seat 34 pax, basically a platoon size element. Doubling that would be unsafe at best, but more like suicidal.
Blackhawks only carry eleven. There aren't any Hueys around, but I'm fairly certain they don't carry more than a 'Hawk. Kiowa's aren't even worth mention when it comes to pax.
Even later Chinooks might have more weight capacity, but you're still limited to space. I don't think they're much bigger, if larger at all.
The Mi-26 carries 80 easily. The CH-53E carries 55
Quote
it seems better people than you and I are in charge of that particular military asset.
With an attitude that Airborne is a useful asset because it continues to exist, I predict that you will be very successful in a military career.
Quote
Why do there need to be 3 Ranger BNs and an Airborne division? I'd say so they can share the work load, the "ready" status, regionally specific response AOs, and multiple insertions at the same time, against different opposition.
As I said, there are certain very limited circumstances where a parachute jump is a viable strategy.
I agree, that under the very unusual circumstances of very light opposition, an existing airfield that can be captured intact so that fixed wing aircraft can be landed immediately after it is secured, and all friendly bases are far away, paratroops would be the best device to deploy.
How often does this phenomena occur however? Actually, I can't think of another in American military history. I certainly agree that the US needs at least two divisions for rapid response. I simply disagree that jump school is a necessary skill. Except for commando type operations and the extremely unlikely scenario we've discussed, paratrooping is simply an obsolete technique left over from "Band of Brothers".
Let's also understand that rapid response means "light infantry" that will not be able to defend itself against conventional forces.
In Afghanistan, some SF are horse-mounted. Would that justify resurrecting a Calvary Division?
You are correct that the 101st is now Air Assault rather than paratrooper. Although many of it's members are individually jump qualified.
Finally, I agree totally with your comments about West Pointers and ROTC types becoming jump qualified through glorified skydiving class rather than grunt jump school.
Quote from: dogboy on September 27, 2007, 04:41:42 AM
Quote from: Hawk200 on September 27, 2007, 03:50:54 AM
Quote from: dogboy on September 26, 2007, 07:48:57 PM
Its replacement, the C-17 carries only about a hundred paratroopers, about 20 more troops than a utility helicopter.
Uh, what kind of helicopter are you talking about? A Chinook won't carry that many. It will only seat 34 pax, basically a platoon size element. Doubling that would be unsafe at best, but more like suicidal.
Blackhawks only carry eleven. There aren't any Hueys around, but I'm fairly certain they don't carry more than a 'Hawk. Kiowa's aren't even worth mention when it comes to pax.
Even later Chinooks might have more weight capacity, but you're still limited to space. I don't think they're much bigger, if larger at all.
The Mi-26 carries 80 easily. The CH-53E carries 55
Does the Army own any of either of those platforms?
Quote from: dogboy on September 27, 2007, 04:41:42 AM
Quote from: Hawk200 on September 27, 2007, 03:50:54 AM
Quote from: dogboy on September 26, 2007, 07:48:57 PM
Its replacement, the C-17 carries only about a hundred paratroopers, about 20 more troops than a utility helicopter.
Uh, what kind of helicopter are you talking about? A Chinook won't carry that many. It will only seat 34 pax, basically a platoon size element. Doubling that would be unsafe at best, but more like suicidal.
Blackhawks only carry eleven. There aren't any Hueys around, but I'm fairly certain they don't carry more than a 'Hawk. Kiowa's aren't even worth mention when it comes to pax.
Even later Chinooks might have more weight capacity, but you're still limited to space. I don't think they're much bigger, if larger at all.
The Mi-26 carries 80 easily. The CH-53E carries 55
Mi-26 is Russian. The Ch-53 is a Navy/Marine helicopter. Neither of which you can use for troop movement planning for the
US Army. Neither one of those airframes is part of the Army inventory.
The argument that they carry only 20 less than a C-17 is worthless when it's not an asset that you can actually use. You can't plug hypotheticals like that into a legitimate troop movement plan.
As pointed out earlier, Air Assault is not a long range movement. It's not practical. Airborne is far more practical over 100 miles. And there are numerous assets included with an Airborne division to include Field Artillery, Medical, Signal, and maybe on occasion, Engineers.
Airborne isn't just grunts. There is a lot involved. You may have attended
Air Command and Staff College, but it's obvious they missed a few details, or else they assumed you already were familiar with what an Airborne organization includes.
Just for the record, I'm
not Airborne. I've dealt with them, and I don't care for some of the egos. But I still give them props.
To clear up a couple of misconceptions -
There is one US Airborne Division, the 82nd at Fort Bragg, NC.
There are two separate US Airborne Brigades, the 173rd in Italy and the 4th Bde, 25th ID at Fort Richardson, AK.
There are three full, combat ready Ranger Battalions. The 1st at Hunter Army Airfield, GA, the 2nd at Fort Lewis, WA, and the 3rd at Fort Benning, GA.
There are five active duty Special Forces Groups, the 1st at Fort Lewis, the 5th at Fort Campbell, the 7th at Fort Bragg, and the 10th at Fort Carson.
This does not include the LRS units at Division and Corps as well as the various school units (509th, 4th, 5th, and 6th Ranger Battalions) or the folks in the reserves.
The US Army does not have troop carrying helicopters larger than the CH-47 - which is slow and extremely vulnerable to ground fire. Read about Robert's Ridge.
You forgot the jumps by the 187th Regimental Combat Team at Munson and Pyongyang during the Korean War that prevented NKPA soldiers from escaping north as Eighth Army attacked them.
You also forgot the combat jump by the 173rd during Operation Junction City in Vietnam. There are many who don't think the jump was a "real" combat jump, but a real good friend of mine got the PH to go with his little gold star.
No one can doubt the 173rd's jump to seal the Iraqi northern border after our "allies", the Turks denied the landing of the 4th ID was a mission that could not be accomplished by heli-borne soldiers.
I didn't get to jump in Grenada because other paratroopers cleared the runway for my C-130 to land. Somehow, the helicopters didn't show.
Even though it wasn't a combat jump, C (Abn), 4th Bn, 9th Inf dropped onto Baranof Island with relief supplies after the '64 earthquake.
But the real point of having all of these paratroopers is not to actually use them. The real reason is to make other countries have to account for how they would defend against them. Benjamin Franklin said it best in 1784 - "Where is the prince who can afford so to cover his country with troops for its defense, as that ten thousand men descending from the clouds, might not, in many places, do an infinite deal of mischief before a force could be brought together to repel them?"
I am currently at a conference at USARPAC and one of the discussion points is how to move troops rapidly around the PACRIM in response to emerging contingencies of all spectrum's. Would you like to guess the concensus answer? Yep, C-17's full of paratroopers jumping in weapons, or food, or medicine, or ...
Wow, did we have airborne in Franklin's day?
Just inserting some fun. I was never Army but being how my son is/was a 1st Sgt with the 101st, (he's going through Sgt Majors school at bliss right now, I say God bless you all.
Quote from: dogboy on September 27, 2007, 04:46:06 AM
With an attitude that Airborne is a useful asset because it continues to exist, I predict that you will be very successful in a military career.
OK, now, why the need to denigrate into snide commentary like that?
Quote from: dogboy on September 26, 2007, 07:48:57 PM
There are two fundamental problem with paratroopers. One, they are extremely vulnerable in descent and immediately on reaching the ground. Second, they almost completely defenseless against determined counter-attack because they lack armor, AA, and artillery.
I'll give you the Armor bit. Since they retired the Sheridan (good move, IMHO. That friggin' thing was a rolling deathtrap!), the Airborne has been fairly naked in that way. Hooh, light fighters and all that, I suppose.
However, someone better tell those poor SOBs in the 18th Field Artillery Brigade and the 82nd's DIVARTY that they don't exist, huh? M-198 155mm howitzers are airdropped into DZs with their prime movers during airborne operations. Those boys pride themselves in being able to jump in, get to their equipment, and be putting steel on target inside of a half hour. And once an airhead is established, they can bring in their HIMARS MLRS systems via C-130 (try doing that with the tracked MLRS... you can't) with ranges in excess of 200km. But they lack artillery, right?
And the 82nd has plenty of ADA at its disposal, both corps level assets and divisional assets.
Of course, don't forget that you're never going to use an airborne force where the possibility of a "determined counterattack" (which could range from a squad on up to an entire Army in size, correct?) from a force sufficient to overwhelm it will occur prior to the airlanding of sufficient follow-on assets.
Again, nobody is suggesting that mass-tactical jumps like Market Garden and Overlord are in the future of the airborne. Far from it. Hell, I would guess that 90% of what you'd send the 82nd / 18th Abn Corps on would be considered "rapid deployment" type stuff where their flexibility and speed are more of an asset than their all-up combat power. They arrive via C-130 and normal ground deployment, rather than rapid vertical envelopment, because they can be moving in 1/2 the time of the 101st or the 1st Cav. Remember when the 82nd used to do all those MNF rotations to the Sinai Desert? The idea being that if the crap ever hit the fan there, the first guys in the door are the 82nd, followed by "everybody else".
Airborne troops must also be properly employed in the battlespace. That takes a lot of more than some general pointing to a map and saying "Here, drop the 82nd here..." Its a tool in your toolbox, not the ONLY tool in your toolbox. Nobody in their right mind would insert the 82nd ABN and then say "Here ya go, guys.. hold the fort until the 4th ID arrives via ship.."
QuoteIts replacement, the C-17 carries only about a hundred paratroopers, about 20 more troops than a utility helicopter.
A 2000 man brigade would require about 75 helicopters, more if heavy equipment is required.The US Army alone has over seven thousand helicopters.
I'd like to see the utility helicopter that carries 80 troops. I really would. Particularly one one in the US inventory.
The Chinook is rated to carry "44 passengers or 33 paratroopers" and I'm here to tell you, when you start drag-assing infantrymen with all their crap up that ramp, 33 is a big number. Try about 25 or, maybe 30. Maybe. Its not about lift capacity, either. Its about butts in seats and seatbelts and legroom. 30 is not even a full platoon.
(BTW, whoever said the Chinook was slow needs to be beaten over the head with a rotor blade. 174kts makes the Chinook the fastest aircraft in the Army's inventory. They frequently have to wait for the other kids to catch up.. ;D)The UH-60 carries far less (11?). And start trading bodies for gas, altitude or equipment.
QuoteIt was Air University's Air Command and Staff College that I studied airborne operations in. Seriously, no one with half a brain in the military believes that even battalion-level paratrooper operations against opposition are feasible in modern warfare. They were barely feasible in WWII.
Think about it this way. The US Marine Corps is the premier US expeditionary force. They even have their own air division. How many paratroopers do they bother to have?
Airborne is important to the Army because it is an elite. Special selection and hard training make them excellent soldiers, among the best in the world. It's the jump training that is an anachronism, a waste of money and resources.
I won't argue about the esprit that "Airborne" brings to the table. They fight with a certain degree of elan just because of that little tab that says "I'm an American paratrooper.."
Is the 3rd Infantry on your chopping block next because guarding the Tomb at Arlington is an anachronism and a waste of money and resources?
And while I agree that the Marine Corps is one of our premiere expeditionary forces (please note that I said "one of"), its no the ONLY one. Again, its another tool in the toolbox. The very same arguments you have just put forth against the employment of airborne troops could easily be applied to the concept of amphibious operations. Vunerable, waste of resources, anachronistic, etc. Nobody in their right mind would expect that a Tarawa or Iwo Jima-style amphibious assault would be made in this day and age, right?
Don't tell the Corps that. They'll bite your head off.
The military does a lot of things that are anachronistic, but still serve a valuable purpose. Airborne School is something that tests one's mettle. Its sort of the "first step" in that process. To paraphrase a paratrooper: "When you hand that static line to the jumpmaster, there is a certain 'moment of truth' to that action. What you do next separates the men from the boys.."
(http://www.anchoredbygrace.com/smileys/OLA.gif)
3 points for Lt Col Niness.
[salute] All the Way, Sir! [/salute]
Quote from: NIN on September 27, 2007, 10:10:51 AM
Quote from: dogboy on September 27, 2007, 04:46:06 AM
With an attitude that Airborne is a useful asset because it continues to exist, I predict that you will be very successful in a military career.
OK, now, why the need to denigrate into snide commentary like that?
I second that. Until you've spent time in an Airborne unit, you have no basis of evaluation.
Quote from: brasda91 on September 27, 2007, 06:43:10 PM
I second that. Until you've spent time in an Airborne unit, you have no basis of evaluation.
Its not even so much that. There is just no need to be overly snide about it. We're having a discussion here (and a fairly civil one, although this is gonna denigrate quickly into one of those "NAMF" things, I can see it coming..<GRIN>), and that kind of bitter incivility does not promote dialog, it promotes sniping.
I have not spent time in an airborne unit (even though I am a student of "rapid vertical envelopment," my slant is toward heliborne forces and their tactical employment on the battlefield), however, I can see the need and necessity of certain kinds of forces on the spectrum from light forces (Rangers, Light Infantry, Airborne Infantry, Air Assault, etc) to normal "leg" Divisions (ie. 1st ID, 3rd ID) and "heavy" divisions like the 4th Mech & 1st AD. I don't have to be airborne to understand what it is, what it does, how to employ it, how not to employ it, and what to avoid saying in the presence of folks with jump wings so you don't wind up like an ACU-clad piñata...
I'd gladly go to Airborne School. If they'd let me.
(BTW, dogboy, airborne operations resemble skydiving like, uh, let me think.. T-ball resembles the Major Leagues? No, wait, that's gonna get me beaten by my airborne friends.. Like, uh, salvage diving resembles scuba diving, how's that?)
so the old joke about what the chicken is creaming would be inappropriate in this discussion
(http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.screamingeagle.org/oldabe_files/image007.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.screamingeagle.org/oldabe.htm&h=286&w=210&sz=10&hl=en&start=1&tbnid=YUVXuzIsOy48_M:&tbnh=115&tbnw=84&prev=/images%3Fq%3D101st%2Bairborne%2Bpatch%26gbv%3D2%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den)
Gets ready to take a hit >:D
Here ya go. 31 Oct 91. Blood Wings given to me by Col Mike Haas, AFSOC/PJ(XO), former Army SF/Ranger, Army pilot and Air Force MH-53 Command Pilot type. Wrote a few books too. Great American and friend.
(http://captalk.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3084.0;attach=1142)
Quote from: NIN on September 27, 2007, 10:57:19 AM
Quote from: dogboy on September 26, 2007, 07:48:57 PM
There are two fundamental problem with paratroopers. One, they are extremely vulnerable in descent and immediately on reaching the ground. Second, they almost completely defenseless against determined counter-attack because they lack armor, AA, and artillery.
I'll give you the Armor bit. Since they retired the Sheridan (good move, IMHO. That friggin' thing was a rolling deathtrap!), the Airborne has been fairly naked in that way. Hooh, light fighters and all that, I suppose.
However, someone better tell those poor SOBs in the 18th Field Artillery Brigade and the 82nd's DIVARTY that they don't exist, huh? M-198 155mm howitzers are airdropped into DZs with their prime movers during airborne operations. Those boys pride themselves in being able to jump in, get to their equipment, and be putting steel on target inside of a half hour. And once an airhead is established, they can bring in their HIMARS MLRS systems via C-130 (try doing that with the tracked MLRS... you can't) with ranges in excess of 200km. But they lack artillery, right?
And the 82nd has plenty of ADA at its disposal, both corps level assets and divisional assets.
Of course, don't forget that you're never going to use an airborne force where the possibility of a "determined counterattack" (which could range from a squad on up to an entire Army in size, correct?) from a force sufficient to overwhelm it will occur prior to the airlanding of sufficient follow-on assets.
Again, nobody is suggesting that mass-tactical jumps like Market Garden and Overlord are in the future of the airborne. Far from it. Hell, I would guess that 90% of what you'd send the 82nd / 18th Abn Corps on would be considered "rapid deployment" type stuff where their flexibility and speed are more of an asset than their all-up combat power. They arrive via C-130 and normal ground deployment, rather than rapid vertical envelopment, because they can be moving in 1/2 the time of the 101st or the 1st Cav. Remember when the 82nd used to do all those MNF rotations to the Sinai Desert? The idea being that if the crap ever hit the fan there, the first guys in the door are the 82nd, followed by "everybody else".
Airborne troops must also be properly employed in the battlespace. That takes a lot of more than some general pointing to a map and saying "Here, drop the 82nd here..." Its a tool in your toolbox, not the ONLY tool in your toolbox. Nobody in their right mind would insert the 82nd ABN and then say "Here ya go, guys.. hold the fort until the 4th ID arrives via ship.."
QuoteIts replacement, the C-17 carries only about a hundred paratroopers, about 20 more troops than a utility helicopter.
A 2000 man brigade would require about 75 helicopters, more if heavy equipment is required.The US Army alone has over seven thousand helicopters.
I'd like to see the utility helicopter that carries 80 troops. I really would. Particularly one one in the US inventory.
The Chinook is rated to carry "44 passengers or 33 paratroopers" and I'm here to tell you, when you start drag-assing infantrymen with all their crap up that ramp, 33 is a big number. Try about 25 or, maybe 30. Maybe. Its not about lift capacity, either. Its about butts in seats and seatbelts and legroom. 30 is not even a full platoon.
(BTW, whoever said the Chinook was slow needs to be beaten over the head with a rotor blade. 174kts makes the Chinook the fastest aircraft in the Army's inventory. They frequently have to wait for the other kids to catch up.. ;D)
The UH-60 carries far less (11?). And start trading bodies for gas, altitude or equipment.
QuoteIt was Air University's Air Command and Staff College that I studied airborne operations in. Seriously, no one with half a brain in the military believes that even battalion-level paratrooper operations against opposition are feasible in modern warfare. They were barely feasible in WWII.
Think about it this way. The US Marine Corps is the premier US expeditionary force. They even have their own air division. How many paratroopers do they bother to have?
Airborne is important to the Army because it is an elite. Special selection and hard training make them excellent soldiers, among the best in the world. It's the jump training that is an anachronism, a waste of money and resources.
I won't argue about the esprit that "Airborne" brings to the table. They fight with a certain degree of elan just because of that little tab that says "I'm an American paratrooper.."
Is the 3rd Infantry on your chopping block next because guarding the Tomb at Arlington is an anachronism and a waste of money and resources?
And while I agree that the Marine Corps is one of our premiere expeditionary forces (please note that I said "one of"), its no the ONLY one. Again, its another tool in the toolbox. The very same arguments you have just put forth against the employment of airborne troops could easily be applied to the concept of amphibious operations. Vunerable, waste of resources, anachronistic, etc. Nobody in their right mind would expect that a Tarawa or Iwo Jima-style amphibious assault would be made in this day and age, right?
Don't tell the Corps that. They'll bite your head off.
The military does a lot of things that are anachronistic, but still serve a valuable purpose. Airborne School is something that tests one's mettle. Its sort of the "first step" in that process. To paraphrase a paratrooper: "When you hand that static line to the jumpmaster, there is a certain 'moment of truth' to that action. What you do next separates the men from the boys.."
As a former Airborne Battalion Assistant S-3, and Airborne Anti-Armor Platoon Leader, I'd like to add a bit more.
Firstly. a modern airport is much larger than a battalion sized objective, it is a reinforced brigade size objective that has to seized and held by a unit that trains to seize that size objective. THAT is the 82d's Bread and Butter. While the Ranger Battalions are superbly trained, and capable of nearly any mission, they do not regularly train on Regimental Sized actions. (Any Bat Boys here please confirm/deny)
Secondly, the Infantry Battalion TO&E when I left the 82d (1999) Included FIVE Anti-Armor Platoons, each consisting of 2 sections capable of mounting the M220 TOW Weapons System, the Mk19 40MM Automatic Grenade Launcher, the M2 .50 Cal or any combination thereof. At the time there were 9 Infantry Battalions, so do the math:
9X5X2= 90 TOW II B(1/2) Wepon Systems capable of killing any known Armor Threat at a distance 3,750 meters. Now consider the unlikelihood of US Forces encountering an M1 Abrams, Merkava, (or insert a modern MBT here...)
Add to that 2 Javelins per Infantry Platoon. So: 9 Battalions X 9 Platoons X 2 = 162 Javelins. See http://www.army.mil/factfiles/equipment/antiarmor/javelin.html (http://www.army.mil/factfiles/equipment/antiarmor/javelin.html)
Furthermore, the DRB1 TO&E included the IRC (Immediate Reaction Company, also on 18 hour, anywhere in the world readiness) from Fort Stewart, normally task organized as 2 Bradley Platoons + 1 Abrams Platoon, that was designed to replace the "lost" Sheridan Company from the DRB1. Expectation after an Airfield Seizure would be airlands inbound at H+4.
So is the Airborne Obsolete? Not Hardly. Show another SINGLE force capable of alerting, marshaling, and deploying with 18 hours notice, worldwide, and then being able to power project from Fort Bragg to Kazakstan. See: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/usaf/afdd/afdd2-6.pdf (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/usaf/afdd/afdd2-6.pdf) Look on Page 20.
QuoteThe early success of CENTRAZBAT 97
was tied to an ambitious plan that involved
airdropping 82nd Airborne Division
troops and six vehicles on a drop
zone 8000 nautical miles away in
Kazakhstan. Transported by 8 C–17 aircraft, this operation covered more distance
than any airborne operation in history. It would not have been possible
without extensive air refueling support which consisted of 11 KC–135s and 9
KC–10 aircraft, most of which were prepositioned to Moron, Spain. Eight thousand
miles and 20 hours later, the personnel and equipment were delivered
on target and within one second of the planned time over target.
Try doing THAT with helicopters.
Believe me boys and girls, when the President dials 911, the phone rings at Fort Bragg.
Found this, had to add it to this old thread....
(http://www.blackfive.net/photos/uncategorized/2007/06/18/20070613agenda_2.jpg)
Quote from: Falshrmjgr on September 18, 2007, 04:02:48 PM
That's been hanging on my wall for a week! ;D
B/3/12 SFG(A) 93-94
C/3/12 SFG(A) & D(P)/5/19 SFG(A) 94-96
3/325 AIR, 82D ABN 96-99
I served in the 12th as well from 89-91 (Arlington Heights) - thought they deactivated in 95 though? What team were you on?
Quote from: dogboy on September 26, 2007, 04:40:22 PM
As anyone who has been to Staff College knows, they'll almost certainly never be another combat jump. Paratrooper training is a huge waste of money and resources.
I think the last combat drop (excluding commando operations and what were basically public relations events in Granada and Panama) was the Suez crisis in 1957.
Simply, the helicopter-borne troops can do everything paratroopers can do and better.
You really need to spend some time reading a little history. I guess the jump I made into Kandahar doing an airfield seizure in November 2001 was just for public relations. The injuries I sustained which ended my 15 year Military career with an early retirement were for public relations. Let me guess - you are not airborne qualified?
Quote from: dogboy on September 26, 2007, 04:40:22 PM
As anyone who has been to Staff College knows, they'll almost certainly never be another combat jump. Paratrooper training is a huge waste of money and resources.
I think the last combat drop (excluding commando operations and what were basically public relations events in Granada and Panama) was the Suez crisis in 1957.
Simply, the helicopter-borne troops can do everything paratroopers can do and better.
Wow. I got the same speech in March 1976, right after I graduated from jump school. We were told that Air Assault would be the way of the future and Airborne would be relegated to museums and we would be one of the last classes.
I've got over 400 military parachute jumps to my credit and I jumpmastered one combat freefall. THHHHHHBBBBBTTT [/raspberry]
There's plenty of parachute assaults in history in the 60's, 80's, and now in the GWOT. The one that I was a part of was a pretty successful one - but you're not going to read about that one.
(BTW, I'm a ACSC grad and I didn't see anything in there about airborne ops - I must have missed that one)
You'll need to tell my team sergeant that Panama was a public relations stunt. But yell loud - Arlington Cemetary is a long way from here.
Greetings to my other airborne brothers and sisters.
Gunner C (HALO, SCUBA, Greenlight, Pathfinder)
SFODC-191, 1/19th SFGA
SFODA-552, 2/5th SFGA (x2)
Classified Unit in a Classified Land
ODA-734, 1/7th SFGA
ODA-782, 3/7th SFGA
ODB-750, 2/7th SFGA
USAJFKSWCS
Quote from: Gunner C on November 09, 2007, 01:04:34 AM
(BTW, I'm a ACSC grad and I didn't see anything in there about airborne ops - I must have missed that one)
...
Greetings to my other airborne brothers and sisters.
I think he was referring to CAP's National Staff College... not ACSC... (HA!)
And... greetings right back.
No, he was talking ACSC...
Quote from: dogboy on September 26, 2007, 07:48:57 PM
It was Air University's Air Command and Staff College that I studied airborne operations in. Seriously, no one with half a brain in the military believes that even battalion-level paratrooper operations against opposition are feasible in modern warfare. They were barely feasible in WWII.
Think about it this way. The US Marine Corps is the premier US expeditionary force. They even have their own air division. How many paratroopers do they bother to have?
Airborne is important to the Army because it is an elite. Special selection and hard training make them excellent soldiers, among the best in the world. It's the jump training that is an anachronism, a waste of money and resources.
Having been a Marine Infantryman, we were amphibious. I was always told as a grunt that the 82nd was our Army counterpart if Airborne insertions were needed. Hence the reason we trained with the 82nd at Lejuene several times.
Quote from: Flying Pig on November 09, 2007, 06:12:53 PM
Having been a Marine Infantryman, we were amphibious. I was always told as a grunt that the 82nd was our Army counterpart if Airborne insertions were needed. Hence the reason we trained with the 82nd at Lejuene several times.
Hence the reason for the USMC Liaison Team in Division Headquarters - the only US Army Division with Marines permanently assigned to its staff.
We practiced many airhead seizures where the Marines were the follow on force in their helicopters from the sea.
Enjoy the cake tomorrow my friend.
QuoteBelieve me boys and girls, when the President dials 911, the phone rings at Fort Bragg.
Yesterday, William Perry, a Secretary of Defense under President Clinton, talked to a political science class at the University of Colorado about "how close the US came to invading Haiti in 1994."
"Perry, who served from 1994-97, said he was an hour away from sending US troops to the island. Former President Carter, Colin Powell and US Senator Sam Nunn were in Haiti to persuade military rulers to step down. Perry said he walked into Clinton's office, heard Clinton talking to Carter..."
"
Meanwhile, some Haitian agents saw airplanes taking off from Fort Bragg, N.C., so they telephoned the top Haitian general, who was negotiating with Carter. Carter got his deal five minutes later, Perry said."
Excerpted from an article in today's Rocky Mountain News (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5743060,00.html)
Mike
Quote from: Flying Pig on November 09, 2007, 06:12:53 PM
Having been a Marine Infantryman, we were amphibious. I was always told as a grunt that the 82nd was our Army counterpart if Airborne insertions were needed. Hence the reason we trained with the 82nd at Lejuene several times.
I enjoyed working with my Marine brothers....though Hell & Purgatory DZ sucked!
I was also one of the fortunates that was able to attend Amphibious Warfare school....so I can attest to the tightness between the "Devils in Baggy-Pants" and the Devil Dogs!
Quote from: sardak on November 10, 2007, 05:41:11 AM
QuoteBelieve me boys and girls, when the President dials 911, the phone rings at Fort Bragg.
Yesterday, William Perry, a Secretary of Defense under President Clinton, talked to a political science class at the University of Colorado about "how close the US came to invading Haiti in 1994."
"Perry, who served from 1994-97, said he was an hour away from sending US troops to the island. Former President Carter, Colin Powell and US Senator Sam Nunn were in Haiti to persuade military rulers to step down. Perry said he walked into Clinton's office, heard Clinton talking to Carter..."
"Meanwhile, some Haitian agents saw airplanes taking off from Fort Bragg, N.C., so they telephoned the top Haitian general, who was negotiating with Carter. Carter got his deal five minutes later, Perry said."
Excerpted from an article in today's Rocky Mountain News (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5743060,00.html)
Mike
BTW....it is said that Saddam, during the First Gulf War, was so afraid of the 82nd that he deployed an inordinate amount of firepower at airfields to specifically defend against us.
I guess we are just obsolete though. *shrug*
Quote from: LittleIronPilot on November 10, 2007, 02:06:00 PM
Quote from: sardak on November 10, 2007, 05:41:11 AM
QuoteBelieve me boys and girls, when the President dials 911, the phone rings at Fort Bragg.
Yesterday, William Perry, a Secretary of Defense under President Clinton, talked to a political science class at the University of Colorado about "how close the US came to invading Haiti in 1994."
"Perry, who served from 1994-97, said he was an hour away from sending US troops to the island. Former President Carter, Colin Powell and US Senator Sam Nunn were in Haiti to persuade military rulers to step down. Perry said he walked into Clinton's office, heard Clinton talking to Carter..."
"Meanwhile, some Haitian agents saw airplanes taking off from Fort Bragg, N.C., so they telephoned the top Haitian general, who was negotiating with Carter. Carter got his deal five minutes later, Perry said."
Excerpted from an article in today's Rocky Mountain News (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5743060,00.html)
Mike
BTW....it is said that Saddam, during the First Gulf War, was so afraid of the 82nd that he deployed an inordinate amount of firepower at airfields to specifically defend against us.
I guess we are just obsolete though. *shrug*
The Republican Guard were told that in order to join the 82nd we had to kill a member of our family. He He He...,psyops.....is great!!! ;D I sure do miss grandma though... :o
Quote from: brasda91 on November 11, 2007, 09:46:10 PM
[ ... I sure do miss grandma though... :o
I thought your aim was getting better!
Quote from: brasda91 on November 11, 2007, 09:46:10 PM
Quote from: LittleIronPilot on November 10, 2007, 02:06:00 PM
Quote from: sardak on November 10, 2007, 05:41:11 AM
QuoteBelieve me boys and girls, when the President dials 911, the phone rings at Fort Bragg.
Yesterday, William Perry, a Secretary of Defense under President Clinton, talked to a political science class at the University of Colorado about "how close the US came to invading Haiti in 1994."
"Perry, who served from 1994-97, said he was an hour away from sending US troops to the island. Former President Carter, Colin Powell and US Senator Sam Nunn were in Haiti to persuade military rulers to step down. Perry said he walked into Clinton's office, heard Clinton talking to Carter..."
"Meanwhile, some Haitian agents saw airplanes taking off from Fort Bragg, N.C., so they telephoned the top Haitian general, who was negotiating with Carter. Carter got his deal five minutes later, Perry said."
Excerpted from an article in today's Rocky Mountain News (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5743060,00.html)
Mike
BTW....it is said that Saddam, during the First Gulf War, was so afraid of the 82nd that he deployed an inordinate amount of firepower at airfields to specifically defend against us.
I guess we are just obsolete though. *shrug*
The Republican Guard were told that in order to join the 82nd we had to kill a member of our family. He He He...,psyops.....is great!!! ;D I sure do miss grandma though... :o
LOL...really? [darn]...I wish I had known that, I could have increased my stake in the family inheritance!
Quote from: sardak on November 10, 2007, 05:41:11 AM
QuoteBelieve me boys and girls, when the President dials 911, the phone rings at Fort Bragg.
Yesterday, William Perry, a Secretary of Defense under President Clinton, talked to a political science class at the University of Colorado about "how close the US came to invading Haiti in 1994."
"Perry, who served from 1994-97, said he was an hour away from sending US troops to the island. Former President Carter, Colin Powell and US Senator Sam Nunn were in Haiti to persuade military rulers to step down. Perry said he walked into Clinton's office, heard Clinton talking to Carter..."
"Meanwhile, some Haitian agents saw airplanes taking off from Fort Bragg, N.C., so they telephoned the top Haitian general, who was negotiating with Carter. Carter got his deal five minutes later, Perry said."
Excerpted from an article in today's Rocky Mountain News (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5743060,00.html)
Mike
1. IIRC, the Brigade on alert for this drop was only given half their combat load of ammo because Clinton didn't want to hurt the Haitians feelings of self worth or some other load of Bovine excrement.
2. What kind of moron sends 2 of our nation's finest statesmen (plus a former president) ahead of an intended invasion anyway? Seems like an effective way of getting 3 people kidnapped and/or killed.
Ihavent read through this entire thread. But I am sure its been posted. Have you all seen the jumpmaster dance video yet?
Quote from: Johnny Yuma on November 18, 2007, 03:52:20 AM
Quote from: sardak on November 10, 2007, 05:41:11 AM
QuoteBelieve me boys and girls, when the President dials 911, the phone rings at Fort Bragg.
Yesterday, William Perry, a Secretary of Defense under President Clinton, talked to a political science class at the University of Colorado about "how close the US came to invading Haiti in 1994."
"Perry, who served from 1994-97, said he was an hour away from sending US troops to the island. Former President Carter, Colin Powell and US Senator Sam Nunn were in Haiti to persuade military rulers to step down. Perry said he walked into Clinton's office, heard Clinton talking to Carter..."
"Meanwhile, some Haitian agents saw airplanes taking off from Fort Bragg, N.C., so they telephoned the top Haitian general, who was negotiating with Carter. Carter got his deal five minutes later, Perry said."
Excerpted from an article in today's Rocky Mountain News (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5743060,00.html)
Mike
1. IIRC, the Brigade on alert for this drop was only given half their combat load of ammo because Clinton didn't want to hurt the Haitians feelings of self worth or some other load of Bovine excrement.
2. What kind of moron sends 2 of our nation's finest statesmen (plus a former president) ahead of an intended invasion anyway? Seems like an effective way of getting 3 people kidnapped and/or killed.
There couldnt be a thread without making some political statement could there? I was enjoying this thread until I read that
Quote from: flyguy06 on November 18, 2007, 05:07:59 PM
Quote from: Johnny Yuma on November 18, 2007, 03:52:20 AM
Quote from: sardak on November 10, 2007, 05:41:11 AM
QuoteBelieve me boys and girls, when the President dials 911, the phone rings at Fort Bragg.
Yesterday, William Perry, a Secretary of Defense under President Clinton, talked to a political science class at the University of Colorado about "how close the US came to invading Haiti in 1994."
"Perry, who served from 1994-97, said he was an hour away from sending US troops to the island. Former President Carter, Colin Powell and US Senator Sam Nunn were in Haiti to persuade military rulers to step down. Perry said he walked into Clinton's office, heard Clinton talking to Carter..."
"Meanwhile, some Haitian agents saw airplanes taking off from Fort Bragg, N.C., so they telephoned the top Haitian general, who was negotiating with Carter. Carter got his deal five minutes later, Perry said."
Excerpted from an article in today's Rocky Mountain News (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5743060,00.html)
Mike
1. IIRC, the Brigade on alert for this drop was only given half their combat load of ammo because Clinton didn't want to hurt the Haitians feelings of self worth or some other load of Bovine excrement.
2. What kind of moron sends 2 of our nation's finest statesmen (plus a former president) ahead of an intended invasion anyway? Seems like an effective way of getting 3 people kidnapped and/or killed.
There couldnt be a thread without making some political statement could there? I was enjoying this thread until I read that
Minus the pejorative, I don't really think that was a political statement, just an opinion that risking those persons was a highly risky proposition that could have had tactical and strategic consequences. I personally thought it was monumentally stupid at the time.
Quote from: Falshrmjgr on November 20, 2007, 10:45:09 PM
Quote from: flyguy06 on November 18, 2007, 05:07:59 PM
Quote from: Johnny Yuma on November 18, 2007, 03:52:20 AM
Quote from: sardak on November 10, 2007, 05:41:11 AM
QuoteBelieve me boys and girls, when the President dials 911, the phone rings at Fort Bragg.
Yesterday, William Perry, a Secretary of Defense under President Clinton, talked to a political science class at the University of Colorado about "how close the US came to invading Haiti in 1994."
"Perry, who served from 1994-97, said he was an hour away from sending US troops to the island. Former President Carter, Colin Powell and US Senator Sam Nunn were in Haiti to persuade military rulers to step down. Perry said he walked into Clinton's office, heard Clinton talking to Carter..."
"Meanwhile, some Haitian agents saw airplanes taking off from Fort Bragg, N.C., so they telephoned the top Haitian general, who was negotiating with Carter. Carter got his deal five minutes later, Perry said."
Excerpted from an article in today's Rocky Mountain News (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5743060,00.html)
Mike
1. IIRC, the Brigade on alert for this drop was only given half their combat load of ammo because Clinton didn't want to hurt the Haitians feelings of self worth or some other load of Bovine excrement.
2. What kind of moron sends 2 of our nation's finest statesmen (plus a former president) ahead of an intended invasion anyway? Seems like an effective way of getting 3 people kidnapped and/or killed.
There couldnt be a thread without making some political statement could there? I was enjoying this thread until I read that
Minus the pejorative, I don't really think that was a political statement, just an opinion that risking those persons was a highly risky proposition that could have had tactical and strategic consequences. I personally thought it was monumentally stupid at the time.
And I could make the observation from personalexperience of what I went through in 2005-2006
Quote from: flyguy06 on November 21, 2007, 10:57:52 PM
And I could make the observation from personalexperience of what I went through in 2005-2006
And what was that?
WAR. Which i have no problem with generally. i just think the one we are currently in . The one I participated in is uncalled for. But that doesnt matter and I dont want to get into a pro or anti war discussion because its irrelevant. I do my job to the best of my ability and thats that